Science-based Targets for Nature are Critical to the Climate Solution

Erin Billman • April 14, 2021

A systemic challenge like the climate crisis requires systemic solutions. Recent science has made clear that solving climate change is not a 2050 imperative but one for today—the world will need to be well on the path to mid-century carbon-neutrality within the next nine years if we are going to hold global average temperatures to no more than 1.5-degrees Celsius of warming. To meet this level of urgency, communities, companies, and investors are calculating and adopting science-based targets. Science-based targets (SBTs) are measurable, actionable, and time-bound objectives, based on the best available science. For climate, science-based targets give companies a clearly-defined pathway to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals. For nature, they will allow businesses to align their strategies with Earth’s limits and societal sustainability goals, like the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

Already, more than 1,200 companies are now committed to set science-based climate targets because they see the future is net-zero. These targets ensure their business strategies incorporate emissions reductions at an ambitious enough pace and scale to play their part in limiting global temperature rise in line with science.


Now we need to add nature into the equation. Nature needs protecting in its own right—as the provider of everything humans depend on to live our lives and run our businesses. And, critically, we can’t reach our climate goals without simultaneously addressing nature loss.


Building on the momentum of science-based targets for climate, the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) was set up to develop an integrated solution to the nature and climate crises. The SBTN aims to break down silos between organizations, issues, and approaches in order to solve the interrelated challenges facing the global commons: climate change and the degradation of ecosystems critical for human well-being.


The SBTN is developing science-based targets for nature for companies, along with both climate and nature targets for cities. The nature targets for companies and cities will assess their impacts and dependencies on nature - by which we mean all non-human living entities - and in turn their interaction with other living or non-living physical entities and processes. This definition, from  the IPBES Global Assessment 2019, recognizes that all of these interactions bind humans to nature and beyond that, the interactions between species, soils, rivers or nutrients bind them to each other.


Addressing these two issues simultaneously will be the most efficient and effective way for business to take action on both nature loss and climate change—issues that have been defined as the greatest risks and opportunities of our time. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Nature and Business report estimates that nature-positive transitions could generate up to US$10.1 trillion in annual business value and create 395 million jobs by 2030.


Our approach at SBTN is a consolidated and comprehensive one. The targets address the interconnection of issue areas, allowing companies to take action on multiple issues at once and avoid creating new problems. When designed and implemented correctly, SBTs for nature will help companies to resolve interrelated climate and nature risks, including creating resilience to climate hazards, such as heat waves, floods, and droughts. As operations reorient to meet these targets, they can help conserve freshwater resources and increase water security, regenerate land systems, support healthy, diverse oceans and conserve biodiversity, and prevent species extinction.


The SBTN’s approach need not be duplicative nor require increased monitoring and reporting burden for companies. For many, the approach will build on existing resources and tools and, therefore, consolidate actions that companies are already taking. It draws heavily on the Natural Capital Protocol, existing practices in land-conversion-free supply chains, and lifecycle (impact) assessment (LC(I)A). In addition, it recognizes the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and SBTs for climate; contextual water targets; context-based targets more broadly; CDP; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); and the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review as valuable for helping companies collect and organize data for SBT setting.


We will not limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C without protecting and restoring nature. Now is the time to bring every possible solution to bear. Companies need to take responsibility for their own impacts and dependencies on nature alongside cutting emissions in line with science. Buying carbon credits for projects outside of a company’s own sphere of influence will be nowhere near enough to achieve either their climate or nature goals.


The SBTN’s initial guidance on science-based targets (SBTs) for nature,  published last year, is a first step toward integrated SBTs for all aspects of nature: biodiversity, climate, freshwater, land, and ocean. Developing further enterprise methodologies to use SBTs for nature are well underway. These will enable voluntary action for nature and climate, in turn enabling stronger policy as governments gain confidence to set stronger climate and nature policies.


We invite the ISSP community to get in touch with us to begin your journey of setting SBTs for nature as integral to reaching global climate goals. You can also learn how to join our Corporate Engagement Program. In addition, we invite the ISSP community to join us in co-designing our targets and helping us to road-test them for impact, cost-effectiveness and user-experience. Together, we can build an integrated solution to the nature and climate crises.


Photo: Gary Cunliffe


About the Author:

Erin Billman
Executive Director, Science Based Targets Network

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
PHOTO: Ana Bachurova | Pléneau Island, 65°06.6’S / 064°04.0’W
By Ana Bachurova March 20, 2025
After recent travels in Antarctica, UNEP-FI Energy Efficiency Lead Ana Bachurova, M.Sc., MBA shares learnings and insights into our current environmental realities and how practitioners in sustainable development can advance positive impacts.
More blog posts